Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academy 9 (France)

Star Academy 9 (France) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was going to merge this into Star Academy (French TV series) however the parent article has more information about the season than the actual season article. The season article seems to be an incomplete draft with only one external link to its broadcaster's site and no sources. Looks like the article was abandoned shortly after the season started. Requesting that this be deleted since the section on the parent article covers the season slightly better on English Wikipedia at this time. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the season article is one of the many examples of reality TV show articles that contains
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE info about the "contest" which is well beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia should do. (That's what Wikias are for...) In addition, the article is completely unsourced. I agree with the nominator that what is covered on this season at the main Star Academy (French TV series) article is sufficient, and that there is not enough valid content to justify a "standalone" season article in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not suitable for mainspace in its current form and as the nom said, the parent has much more information. --Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania)

Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is very outdated, cites no sources and is improperly formatted. Most edits that have been made to this article from 2013-present seem to be from a maintenance perspective. The main article for this series Mireasă pentru fiul meu already has a small recap of this season and who won. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – for pretty much the same rationale I just offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Academy 9 (France). In this case too, the "season" article is completely unsourced, and the base Mireasă pentru fiul meu contains a sufficient summary of the season. Again, there is not enough valid content to justify a "standalone" season article in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is in terible condition and not suitable for mainspace. A lot of drive-by editors (and sadly, not limited to them alone) are too eager to create reality season tables, without actually adding any other information or even sources to the article. As nom said, the main article is better for this. --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Compassion Movement"

"Compassion Movement" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unremarkable neologism which is attributed to one person, Jennifer Skiff, coining it in 2018. Also, most of the content in this article is duplicated from Skiff’s article. Caorongjin (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  Talk: Contribs) 23:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete due to relative insignificance and lack of recognition (lack of use as a term) and as per nom. Dictonary1 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the Jennifer Skiff article, where the term already has all the coverage it deserves. --Lockley (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Leibowitz

Shira Leibowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only references are to her social media Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails
  WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is a G11.Trillfendi (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Suns

Bad Suns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The way I see it here is like this: neither the band, their only single (which redirects to their album), or the album itself fall under NMUSIC (or GNG for that matter). I tried to find significant coverage. Really the only mention of them comes from a Huffington Post writer’s list of favorite albums. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When i saw article references i was amazed why

Wait here i just found out that they are charted in billboard [1] which is notable. They are notable here.

Talk 08:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You do realize that having charted on Billboard is not automatically notability, right... (even if that was, having only 3 appearences, peaking at 24, 41, and 109, and not one single charting doesn’t cut it.) It certainly doesn’t supersede an absolute lack of significant coverage. Not whatsoever.Trillfendi (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hack: Does Draft:Gregory Walters, footballer address those concerns? That should have been history-merged in and overwrote the old version of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@hack I have copied the draft article to the page that appears to have now been set live. I believe the references provided are reliable and significant coverage of the individual. Please consider removing the proposal to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecool1234 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred rather than review the draft Draft:Gregory Walters, footballer i have copied this content into the Gregory Walters (footballer, born 1981) so the previous version has gone. I believe this new articles address the issues raised on the previous version that was deleted. It now has relevant, reliable references. I hope the article can now remain live in its latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecool1234 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NFOOTY; no notability from activity outside of (playing professional) football. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - definitely not notable for football, can't see any evidence of notability outside it either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Lightweight protocol

Lightweight protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned, no edits in nearly ten years, no real prospect of expansion. grendel|khan 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'll admit ignorance of the topic, but based on appearance this seems to be a
  WP:SETINDEX or disambiguation page, as the term "lightweight protocol" could apparently refer to multiple articles. There is then no reason to expect that it would be "expanded". Or am I missing something? postdlf (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Disambiguation pages tend to not get edited much, it looks fine to me. Human-potato hybrid (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is a
  talk) 05:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as a valid set index article.
  Talk: Contribs) 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: no case to answer as the nominator's rationale is
  a listed argument to avoid at deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep as there is plenty of evidence that this is a notable rivalry (just flick through the citations), as unlike the previous article that existed and was deleted (which you seem to not realise is entirely different to this one) there are various reputable sources and news publications which describe and analyse the rivalry in-depth. If that is your only argument for deletion (that it does not meet notability requirements) then I disagree, as does the evidence and coverage referenced in the current article, which I will reiterate, is entirely different from the previously deleted article. --

XfD. [reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason given by the 'unanimous consensus' in the previous ADF discussion, which was, and I'll say it again, a completely different article to this one, was that the subject matter was not notable. However, this is simply not true.

talk) 09:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: the article is currently being discussed at

WP:NPOV concerns about the article; for instance, the lead goes out of its way to portray Rosberg as the privileged son of a former champion and Hamilton the underdog who got through on sheer grit; the article arguably favours Hamilton. 1.144.111.7 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

IP 1.144.111.7, your observations seem to confirm that the subject is significantly covered in reliable sources, even if their opinion goes against your own. And as

WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", that supports a keep rather than a delete. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with

talk) 08:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: I'll be constructive if articles are necessary. And I don't see how this article is necessary. Especially when Prost/Senna or Schumacher/Hill don't have dedicated articles. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the

notability test. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: a policy-based argument has been made—there are NPOV issues present and some of the sources are questionable. 1.144.111.130 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not deletion policy reasons for deletion (see

WP:DEL-REASON), they are trivial "because I don't like it"-type reasons, which, even if it was agreed that they actually existed, are easily fixable. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The NPOV issues stemming from the sources fits DEL-REASON. This article is not neutral; it clearly takes Hamilton's side. The sources used are not neutral; they clearly take Hamilton's side. There has been no attempt to find balance in the sources—look at the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: it takes the time to give weight to Niki Lauda's defence of Hamilton (without explaining why Lauda though Hamilton was in the right), but does not explore any criticism of Hamilton's actions. Or look at the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix, which strongly implies Rosberg deliberately ruined Hamilton's qualifying lap, but only offers "several pundits" opinions' as sources. Or look at the language used throughout the article: "a perfect start", "a thrilling race", etc, which is not language suited to purpose. Or the analysis I did of a lead paragraph here. I read this article and all I see is a one-sided representation of the subject which barely meets the notability guidelines, if at all. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching rather a lot with that 'analysis'. Seems like you're also pushing your own agenda/POV on the article. --

talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's there in black and white. Hamilton did something that was subject to criticism at the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix. However, the article only offers Lauda's defence of him. It should also offer the criticism of him so that the reader understands the issue. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP 1.144.108.197, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, let's be productive and improve the article. --

talk) 10:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

And I think deleting the article is the most productive thing to do. The time and energy that would be spent rewriting it could be better used developing more important articles. 1.144.111.141 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was it being a "productive thing to do" part of the deletion criteria? --

talk) 08:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It breaks

WP:BLP. I could go through and remove everything that is not neutral because it is clearly pro-Hamilton, but the article would be little more than a stub. 1.144.108.197 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

IP 1.144.108.197, I can't see where you think it breaks BLP. Please give one specific paragraph or sentence as an example. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies"

Those three core policies are

When Rosberg, on fresher tires, closed the gap to Hamilton, Mercedes asked the British driver to move over, knowing the German would have to pit again before the end of the race. Hamilton refused, reasoning that he had battled through from last position and that he was not prepared to slow down to let Rosberg through. Hamilton's decision meant he held on to third, keeping Rosberg at bay in the final stages after his pit stop. Niki Lauda spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right."

This breaks NPOV because it only speaks in support of Hamilton. It offers a single opinion supporting Hamilton's actions, but does not offer any justification for that opinion. The article really should address the following questions:

1. Who is Niki Lauda (it is the first time the article mentions him) and why do his words carry weight?
2. Why did Lauda think Hamilton was in the right?
3. Who, if anyone, spoke against Hamilton, and what were their reasons?
4. How did Hamilton and Rosberg address the issue in public?
5. How did Hamilton's decision affect his relationship with Rosberg?
6. What measures (if any) did the team take to manage them in future?
7. How did those measures (or lack thereof) influence the relationship?
8. How would Hamilton slowing to allow Rosberg through affect his race, and what did Hamilton think the effect would be?
9. What did the team expect would happen if Hamilton let Rosberg through as planned?

As it is, the article details an incident in which Hamilton disobeyed team orders, and his decision affected the race result. In providing a defence from Lauda, the reader can infer that his decision was controversial (why else would Lauda need to defend him?). However, the article only provides a defence of Hamilton and so the reader may come to the conclusion that Hamilton's actions were justified. That to me breaks NPOV because it is leading the reader to a conclusion: that Hamiltion defied team orders, got a better result out of it, and that he was completely justified in doing so. 1.144.108.211 (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NPOV is not a delete rationale, at least not primarily. This rivalry clearly passes
  WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: NPOV might not be a primary reason for deletion, but this article is at least in part biographical, and NPOV is a cornerstone of BLP. The majority of the sources used in the article come from British publications despite the rivalry being between a Brit and a German, and I have concerns that their coverage is one-sided. For example, Hamilton made some comments recently that were controversial, but Autosport—one of the major publications used by WP:F1—did not report on it. They rarely report on any criticism of British drivers? How can we say this article meets GNG when the sources are one-sided and of questionable neutrality? 1.144.108.118 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• IP 1.144.108.118, that is a simple content disagreement rather than a reason for deletion. You should go to the article talkpage with any reliable sources that give a differing view, and argue the case for an adjustment of the POV balance there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• IP 1.144.108.118, the argument you are making about NVOP is clearly a content discussion, and not relevant here. Additionally, you are wrong in saying Autosport did not cover the controversial comments, as shown here. --
  talk) 13:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I see you have completely ignored my extensive discussion of how the article fails NPOV. 1.129.105.118 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not ignored, just disagreed with. An unsupported challenge to the balance of a small portion of the content is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable subject, it is something that needs to be discussed on its talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an example of moving the goalposts. You asked for "one specific paragraph or sentence as an example" of how the article breaks BLP. I did exactly that, demonstrating how the article fails NPOV and by extension BLP. But apparently that's no longer good enough. 1.129.107.93 (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, I wanted clarification of what your idea of NPOV was, and having seen it, I am not persuaded that you have a case. You are comparing what's written in the article with your personal views and interpretation of history, and not with the views of notable commentators via other reliable sources - that's OR/SYNTH on your part, and not NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• McLaren MCL33 stops recounting the car's performance after the 2018 British Grand Prix. Would you agree that there are gaps in the article? If so, how is that different to this article? Niki Lauda offers an opinion which the article repeats, but does not explain. Surely you agree that this is a gap in the article. Do you not see how this might create an NPOV issue? Especially considering which pages link to the article; it is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article and mostly just lifts content from there. 1.129.107.54 (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if some points are incomplete and even if that does render them as non-NPOV, that is an entirely different matter to the article being irreconcilably non-NPOV and requiring deletion. Take the points you are concerned about to the article's talkpage, along with any supporting reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I dont see any signs this rivalry is notable. Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title. Maybe the sources mention a rivalry (which might be logical as they were teammates). This discussion on this page is far to detailed to be encyclopedic and the comments above by both sides of this looks like
  WP:BLUDGEON. Maybe if there is a couple of google books entries that chronicle the rivalry, but if we are just going to us industry dribble about two drivers this is far too low a bar for inclusion in wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:GNG. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: one source does not automatically make a subject notable enough to have an article of its own. 1.129.107.159 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well obviously; nobody is saying that. All I did was point out that the statement "Not a single source (at least that I saw) has "rivalry" in the title" was wrong.--
  talk) 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• OK, there is one source, not zero. I corrected that. Every F1 teammate is a rival of his other teammate. Shall we create rivalry pages for all F1 teammate pairs? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there are more that have rivalry in the title, and even more than that with rivalry in the body of the citation. I said the "the first source of the [...] article" includes 'rivalry', I didn't say it was the only source, did I? And no, we should not create rivalry pages for all team-mate pairs,
  talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And yet, there is no dedicated article for the Senna and Prost rivalry. Unlike Hamilton and Rosberg, there were accusations and admissions that Senna and Prost had deliberately crashed into one another to settle World Championships.

This article, however, consistently takes Hamilton's side. In Hungary 2014, the article defends Hamilton's decision to defy team orders; in Monaco 2014, the article criticises Rosberg's actions without sources; in Spain 2016, the article clearly suggests Rosberg was responsible for the contact (by pointing out the speed difference) despite the stewards' ruling.

Between the lack of sources, the inconsistent approach to notability compared to other similar subjects, lack of links to any other articles, and the clear bias that the article shows, where is the redeeming value of the page? 1.129.109.94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The existence, or lack thereof, for an article concerning the rivalry between Senna and Prost is not relevant to this discussion as explained at

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST

.

(2) Any NPOV of this article does form part of the criteria for deletion. That is something to be discussed on the article's talk page.

(3) There simply is not a 'lack of sources', as I've already explained

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST

isn't relevant, links to other articles are plentiful and NPOV is not criteria for deletion.

--

talk) 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Only one page links to the article. It's practically an orphan. 1.129.109.101 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, remove or rework the contentious material, NPOV does not form part of the criteria for deletion of the whole article. I don't understand why you keep giving examples of NPOV here when I'm not refuting that it's not written perfectly, and it's just not relevant. Also, read what you said: You said 'links to other articles', not 'links from other articles'. It's not a moot point; it isn't an orphan. Either way, that is also not relevant to these deletion discussion. --

talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Articles can be deleted on BLP grounds, though. One can even be speedily deleted on such grounds in extreme cases. Nevertheless Jtbobwaysf and the participants raise a fair point though. The drivers have spent ten simultaneous seasons in Formula One, yet this article only deals with a mere four of them. If their "rivalry" is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article. Incidents that relate to one individual race can be dealt with in the articles on those races and more lasting things in the season articles and the drivers' articles. Just what makes this more important than Hamilton-Bottas rivalry, Hamilton–Button rivalry or even Hamilton–Alonso rivalry? And what with Schumacher-Hill rivalry, Schumacher-Villeneuve rivalry, Schumacher-Häkkinen rivalry, Schumacher-Montoya rivalry, Schumacher-Alonso rivalry?Tvx1 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"remove or rework the contentious material"

I could, but the article would almost certainly be deleted for a sheer lack of content.

"This is just a sample of some of the many sources covering the subject."

Do you have anything more international in its flavour? A lot of the sources you are drawing on are British and relate to a British driver. As I have outlined, I think there are genuine concerns about partisan reporting. If only British sources call it a rivalry, is it really a rivalry?

"If their 'rivalry' is nothing more than a strong competition between teammates in by far the most competitive car at the time, than how can this be claimed to be an important rivalry? If it's nothing more than that, it's just not suitable for a dedicated article."

Taken in context, I have to wonder if the rivalry was fabricated—Mercedes have absolutely dominated for the past four years and the racing is often boring (least of all following the brilliance of 2010 and 2012). Building up strong competition into a "rivalry" is a way of getting bums into seats. If we compare Rosberg and Hamilton to the sport's benchmark rivalry—Senna and Prost—it's pretty pale. 1.144.110.123 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As already stated,
  talk) 14:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Most of what you have said sounds like a case of
  WP:CRUFT. You haven't even tried to demonstrate the notability of the subject; you just assume "oh, there's a few sources out there so it must be notable enough for an article" without even critically thinking about the sources. It's pretty obvious that you're a Hamilton fan and the article is a defence of him; every time a controversy is discussed, the article goes out of its way to explain why he did nothing wrong. This article has no redeeming value. 1.144.110.104 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You should also have a read of
  talk) 12:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"I have literally provided a list of news articles from reputable sources that all pass

WP:RS

, all of which have been critically considered."

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the article would be balanced. I raised concerns about the paragraph on the 2014 Hungarian GP days ago which you haven't even bothered to address beyond claiming that you don't need to address it.

"it's worth pointing out how your edits from that IP look very much like sock puppetry"

My situation and why I edit from IP addresses is well-documented. I don't need to justify it to you here because it has nothing to do with this AfD. 1.129.106.104 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your statement makes no sense. I'm not disputing the POV of the article. What I've done on this page is provide a list of reputable sources that all pass
  WP:RS
  . I have proven that the article subject is notable, but has nothing to do with the state of NPOV in the current article.
• Once again you are making strange links: I don't need to address your point on the Hungarian Grand Prix because I do not disagree with what you have said, as I've already stated. You make a valid point in terms of NPOV, I only questioned it's relevance to the discussion for deletion.
• Whatever your justification for using multiple IPs to edit, it would avoid issues like the appearance of
  talk) 21:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please provide a list of

WP:RS for this article. By definition, you need to exclude those that are passing mention or simply refer to the rivalry as a definition. Thus how many top quality mainstream RS exist (nyt, bbc, etc) that actually have a book or news piece that covers the rivalry. I think you provided one (low quality industry rag that had the rivalry in the subject) above and another editor noted this article is essentially an orphan. Is there any real justification to keep it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

BBC News:

• Lewis Hamilton v Nico Rosberg: Childhood friends to arch rivals
• Lewis Hamilton has the speed but Nico Rosberg has the stability
• David Coulthard: Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry fascinating
• 'Mercedes rivalry will be challenging'
• Lewis & Nico: rivals from the start

The official Formula One website:

• Rosberg vs Hamilton - their most dramatic moments to date

ESPN:

• Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry: A timeline

The Telegraph:

• Lewis Hamilton vs Nico Rosberg: A history of the Mercedes teammates' F1 rivalry
• How the Lewis Hamilton- Nico Rosberg rivalry unfolded

There have already been examples given of sources that are not just 'low quality industry rags', but all these ones I've just given are more than acceptable under

talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I'll make a start by analysing the first few articles I provided:

1. BBC News: Lewis Hamilton v Nico Rosberg: Childhood friends to arch rivals
2. BBC News: Lewis Hamilton has the speed but Nico Rosberg has the stability
3. BBC News: David Coulthard: Lewis Hamilton-Nico Rosberg rivalry fascinating
4. BBC News: "Mercedes rivalry will be challenging"
5. BBC News: Lewis & Nico: rivals from the start

These articles are all from

To offer an alternative point of view, this article is largely biographical; unlike most biographies, it focuses on two people and only four years of their respective careers. Nevertheless, it is biographical and thus

cherry-picked. In writing the article, he has only chosen sources that present Hamilton in a positive manner. These NPOV issues are so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it. 1.129.109.186 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have rewritten the contentious sections you highlighted in order to achieve NPOV, and so it should no longer be an issue. It must be pointed out how much you are exaggerating the extent of NPOV issues, which in reality only concern a couple of the on track incidents, in saying they are "so systemic that large portions of the article would need to be removed to the point where there is no substance to it". Regardless, they are fixed now and therefore there should be no problem with

talk) 11:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On top of that—as has been pointed out—it only focuses on four of the ten years they were racing together in Formula 1 (and even then, only on races where there was an incident between them). Aside from a mention of their karting days, there is no coverage of any other time they were racing together. If this is, as the article suggests, a rivalry that started in their karting days, then at best the article covers about 40% of what it needs to; at worst, that number is closer to 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.242 (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We certainly shouldn't have articles on every topic that meets GNG, especially where there are existing articles in which the information can be contained, or where the subject irredemably falls under
  WP:COATRACK
  or similar. However I don't see that to be the case here. There is certianly precedent for articles on rivalry between two individuals:

  Federer–Nadal rivalry and Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson are both Good Articles

So there is no inherent problem with rivalry articles of this type, and there are clearly enough suitable sources to write an

WP:NPOV article (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Discussion on the neutrality of sources should proceed on the article's talk page or project page.--Pontificalibus 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I would note that the article creator and deletion nominator have both made their points, and should consider whether further interventions on the same points might now be bludgeoning the process.--Pontificalibus 07:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE, since it essentially acts as a bar of involvement by a smaller number of editors in a discussion with a larger number. A better essay is needed simply pointing out that repeating yourself all the time might not be a good idea. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Needi Naadi Oke Katha. Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venu Udugula

Venu Udugula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

may not be notable, so xfd instead of csd to get consensus ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 01:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Question for nominator @
  talk) 01:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:FILMMAKER

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

No part of this criteria states that a commercially sucessful film is a notable/significant one. A commercially successful film may only mean that that work that is prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on salability, profit. This is just my opinion, that's why I created an afd instead of directly nominating the article for csd.
‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 03:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Do you think, given the sources and coverage, that the subject passes

talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

To me, I don't think that the person mentioned in this disputed article meets this criteria of

WP:BASIC

From the sources, it only states that "Venu Udugula" made a debut ot direct the film "Needi Naadi Oke Katha". To be fair, only a tiny bit of the sources mentioned that it is notable that the film is successful. However, as mentioned above, the film being successful can mean many other things. Indeed, the film is notable that it is widely received by crtics & fans. But this does not immediately imply that the people behind the scenes is sucessful. Why is there no independent article of the screenwriter? He/She is the one that did the most work according to the amount of hours spent of the film, the director is only there to make the movie "nice & well perceived by the audience", without the scriptwriter, will this film even exist? Will the director be notable in this case? Pardon my harsh tone & sorry if I sound rude, this is only my POV.
‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 09:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I think I understand your nomination rationale now, and I appreciate your willingness to explain.

talk) 10:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Because of Needi Naadi Oke Katha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep I am very uncertain about this one. Does he meet
  WP:TOOSOON
  .
  

But then, in the references for this article, we have four media sources (The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, The New Indian Express, The News Minute) running stories about his next film, all including his name in the headline, which does suggest that they consider him notable. Does he meet

WP:BASIC? Although some of the sources in this article have more about the actors who will be in his next film than about him, there is one [22] which does have more info about him (more than is in this stub, currently). So overall, probably keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to Needi Naadi Oke Katha per RGreen. TOOSOON. ∯WBG^converse 07:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Needi Naadi Oke Katha. While he's only known for one film and there's so little to say about him, a redirect there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geje Eustaquio

Geje Eustaquio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Easy keep. I dunno how an article of 24 references with reliable sources as diverse as
  WP:GNG, granted half of the other references are MMA-centric sources which I can't vouch for... Howard the Duck (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per nominator. This should have been speedy deleted as a repost of the previous recent AfD discussion which got it right with respect to both
  WP:GNG.PRehse (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete He hasn't done anything to become more notable since the deletion in late August of this year. He still fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Coverage is predominantly about upcoming ONE fights and results, which can only be considered as typical sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:NMMA. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Nearly notable for having the article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under
  WP:G12, clear copyvio of [23]. Ifnord (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I removed the copyright violation, which was added in 2013 here, five years after the article had been created.

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. Green, Roland (2008-12-01). "Wings of Hell: Starfist".
     ISSN 0006-7385
     .

     The review notes:

     Wings of Hell: Starfist. By David Sherman and Dan Cragg. Dec. 2008. 368p. Del Rey, $23 (9780345500991). In company with a strong force of army and fellow marines, the battle-hardened 34th FIST now grapples with a major attack by the alien Skink. Though Sherman and Cragg nicely flesh out both sides, they focus on the 34th in combat and at the rear, where a couple of NCOs are in the middle of star-crossed love affairs. Yet the most engaging part of the novel follows the adventures of Moses, a human-raised Skink baby rescued by the skin of his teeth from being an experimental animal, who is now, just possibly, key to future relations between humans and Skink. An impressive addition, the thirteenth, to a fine series.

  2. "StarFist: Wings of Hell".
     Publisher's Weekly. 255 (45). 2008-11-10. Archived from the original
     on 2018-12-28. Retrieved 2018-12-28.

     The review notes:

     In the rousing 13th novel (after 2007’s Firestorm) featuring the 34th Fleet Initial Strike Team (FIST), the interstellar marines have returned to their garrison on Thorsfinni’s World, where they catch up on R&R and get ready for the next round against the mysterious alien Skinks.

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Wings of Hell to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Publisher's Weekly clearly establish that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I didn't notice this was relisted once before, so no prejudic on early closure - Courtesy ping for CaptainEek Ifnord Anatoliatheo who may not have seen above. Nightfury 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Political positions of Ron Paul. There's clear consensus here to not keep this. Between the possibilities of delete, merge, or redirect, there's no real agreement. Merge seems like a reasonable compromise. I do note that the sole argument to keep was, at least in part, based on arguments put forth in earlier AfDs. Given that those AfDs were 7 or more years ago, it seems like they shouldn't carry much weight today. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. When someone has been in government for a long time, they are bound to sponsor legislation (hopefully!). The legislation feeds into the political positions, makes more sense for the two to be in one article. Bkissin (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Any time an article is listed again for deletion after having been kept, the nominator really needs to read those discussions carefully and respond to the arguments raised in them, not act as if they are the first to speak. The prior AFD discussions clearly kept this as a
  without explanation as to why he thinks it calls for deletion here). It is not a POV fork nor redundant to any existing article. As for sourcing, the vast majority of entries clearly identify the bill in question. Those entries that do not can obviously be improved, or if proven not verifiable, removed. So as I see no valid argument for deletion here, keep. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We need RS to demonstrate

  talk) 01:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'd day that "just because" is a terrible reason for keeping an article. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Elaboration on why I want this deleted: I've been asked to comment on the three past RfCs (which occurred between 2007-2011, i.e. during Paul's presidential campaigns). The first RfC (Dec 2007) wanted a merge with
  talk) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think you're conflating two things: "unsourced primary content" is an oxymoron because primary sources are sources. What purpose they are reliable for is no more complicated really than secondary sources, and government documents are certainly available to the public and verifiable (a cite to a bill is just another form of
    WP:NOTPAPER. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete/Redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Per nom. Listcruft and hero-worshipping, and I see little evidence that the legislation Paul has attached his name to -- as an actual topic -- has gained any media or historical traction. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this kind of in-depth treatment is necessarily hero-worship; a critic of a politician may be just as likely to want to document what they've been involved with as a supporter. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Political positions of Ron Paul of the sponsoring that's actually relevant. Functionally all politicians sponsor laws - we don't need lists for all of them, even those laws/sponsoring that get coverage. Merging will be tough - The Political positions article is pretty big, but the relevant sponsoring is going to have to be dragged out a couple at a time and dropped into the appropriate spot. There is already a bit of duplication. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the 3rd AfD has some of the weirdest Keep justifications I've ever seen accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is mindless trivia by somebody who was never a serious national candidate. This is a list of legislation by a legislator ideologically adverse to legislating. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safeer Qureshi

Safeer Qureshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is not notable. References given in the article are ALL press releases, and a Google search didn't yield results otherwise. Csgir (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any evidence of notability. —teb728 t c 00:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet the
  basic criteria for notability, including having received significant coverage from multiple, independent sources.Coastside (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Appears to be a COI by the creator and missing notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet the notability criteria. Reddragon7 (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Pearn

Inez Pearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

• Keep She definitely meets
  WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If there are sources we need to find evidence of them. I tried but with no luck.--Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What an absurd nomination. Check Google Books, for example this.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that source in my nomination, which you appear not to have read. It doesn't discuss her in detail outside the context of her being the wife of a notable husband.-- Pontificalibus 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will add the sources I found as citations (and some quotes from reviews). I found them by searching the British Newspaper Archive, initially (I have not yet searched academic journals). Searching on Google by her nom de plume and the titles of her books, I do find some sources, for example British Women and the Spanish Civil War [24] and some results in Newspapers.com, eg [25] (no content visible without a subscription, which I have, and will also search), an index to The Spectator for the first half of 1946 (again needs a subscription, but shows that a review exists), etc. Google doesn't have access to all digitised newspapers and journals, so is not a good indication of contemporary coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am revising the article, so it may look rather unfinished as I move and edit content. I note that this article was only 2 days old when it was AfDed, and it went straight to AfD without being tagged for notability, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to me that substantial coverage of her life is based on what she herself achieved. It is the mention of her husband that is in passing. It is immaterial whether a description of her life is on account of just one of her books. As for the portraits, I'm not sure they contribute to an assessment of her notability but they are relevant to an article about Pearn as a person. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets
  WP:GNG, article reflects this with references and reviews of her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep books got reviewed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCity Guides

WikiCity Guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination; article is very skimpy too.TH1980 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as appears to fail
  Talk: Contribs) 00:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Failure of
  WP:GNG and doesn't have enough coverage Reddragon7 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Gray

Rosie Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article serves mainly as a resume for this reporter, and was originally created by a user banned for editing with multiple accounts. Athene cunicularia (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes the GNG, since her career is one that reliable sources have paid attention to. That a capsule biography of a writer reads a bit like a resume isn't a fatal problem, since after all, both a resume and a biography report a person's accomplishments. (This article is certainly better in that regard than the interminable stream of marginal academic bios created by doing Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V on a CV.) Whatever the original creator did wrong, the article is independently justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as per XOR'easter and WP policy. Bio subject clearly notable based on references already in article, to which (WP:BEFORE shows) more could be added. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep notable journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portman Dentalcare

Portman Dentalcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are six independent national sources. It's now clearly one of the largest dental business in the UK and growing rapidly.Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not pass notability guidelines for companies. Skirts89 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coverage in citations is referential, not primary, at best. Refers only to Sam Waley-Cohen at worst. This feels like it fails both WP:PROMOTION and WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The dental trade press is not interested in Mr Waley-Cohen. They are interested in the company's acquisitions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some source analysis:

1. [26] - decent source about the company
2. [27] - hard to tell as in foreign language, but looks reliable
3. [28] - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
4. [29] - about Waley-Cohan, passing mention
5. [30] - basically the same info as the first source
6. [31] - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS
7. [32] - article about gender pay, has a 3 line passing mention
8. [33] - local coverage
9. [34] - looks like a rehashed press release, Reuters do a lot of reposting press releases. So not independent in my opinion
10. [35] - not sure dentistry.co.uk is a RS

• So in summary, there's a couple of decent sources but rest are local coverage or only passing mentions. This is why I believe it fails
  WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• dentistry.co.uk is the trade paper for the dental business. It's as good a source as you will get for dental businesses. The very short Reuters article doesnt appear to be a press release. And I dont think it's proper to ignore local coverage by regional papers, in both Oxford and Oldham, of an organisation like this. Nor do I see why you want to discount the Times article about the gender gap. It certainly isnt promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not only is the Times article behind a paywall (

WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• the (
  WP:PAYWALL) guidance says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." But actually there is a bit in the Times article which is above the paywall for all to see, and it mentions the company as well as him. On your analysis there are 3 significant reliable independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - difficult to see what the problem about notability might be with a chain of 80 dental practices worth over £300 million.
  Oculi (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - this is a UK company that is growing, with many already established dental and orthodontic practices joining the company in the last few years, and clearly notable within the UK dentistry profession. It is often the case with successful companies like Portman that they only generate media coverage in the trade press, in this case dentistry.co.uk, and in the financial news - regarding acquisitions. Significant secondary sources are going to be sparse in the absence of controversy or questionable practices. Deleting this article would be, in my mind, rather premature. Poltair (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 00:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Severely lacking article; we know dental chains usually do financing for procedures, and otherwise the article was 'the guy founded it and cashed out, and acquired a bunch of small practices along the way'...then just a bunch of scattered information about openings, their acquisitions here and there, and random organizations they offer discounts to. If any article ever needed a complete fixing-up, it's this one. It's a painful and random read that does nothing to inform us why this company is notable outside 'they acquired a bunch of companies, won some awards, and hey, jockeys can get their maws fixed up at a discount'.
  chatter) 00:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]